- Target:
- we will send the signatures to Congress, senate, and to the office of the President
- Region:
- Philippines
"The Sovereign Filipino People propose to adopt a National Jury Law to minimize government corruption and serious civil/criminal offenses.
A Device for Crime Prevention,
To Achieve National Unity
The Jury System shall operate by instruction to the people who will serve as jurors. The instruction consists of the Grand Jury Instruction and the Trial Jury Instruction. In both forms of instruction, they shall be issued under the tutelage of the presiding judge. These instructions will be uniform in their application throughout the country. This will logically result in the reduction of crimes and naturally pave the way to national unity.
The Jury System shall become the “school of law” under the supervision by lawful authorities, the judges all over the land, 5 days a week, and 52 weeks a year. This is tantamount to mass legal education of the people about their civic responsibilities. By training the people with good citizenship rules coupled with their power to decide in justice, the logical result will be a great reduction in the extent of lawlessness and government corruption in the Philippines.
Without the jury systems, where else shall the people get their education for "good" citizenship and loyalty to their government? Well, of course, from outlaws such as criminal gang leaders, death squad masterminds, or rebel leaders who teach people how to kill people; how to ambush peacekeepers; how to rob, how to murder and how to massacre people; how to fight petty wars between and against opposing tribes due to their rivalry in courtship, business, and in politics.
In the proposed jury systems law, continuous trial with no more than 3 days of postponement, except in life threatening situation, will be mandatory making any lawyer or presiding judge or any party liable for the crime of obstruction of justice upon indictment by the grand jury for the violation of this rule. Administration of justice will speed up that will significantly reduce criminality in the community. With less incidence of crimes, it will promote peace and encourage unity among the Filipino people.
Self-Defense
Our criminal laws provide for instances where a person may defend himself and not be prosecuted for what would normally be a criminal action. Under Section 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the following do not incur any criminal liability:
“Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.”
The justifying circumstance of self-defense “is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.” (People v. Nacuspag, 115 SCRA 172 [1982]) Where the accused has admitted that he is the author of the death of the deceased, it is incumbent upon the appellant, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove this justifying circumstance (self-defense) claimed by him, to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the prosecution for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted the killing.
It is basic that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. We shal now discuss the following requisites in detail:
A. Unlawful Aggression:
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the life or limb of a person. Mere shouting, intimidating or threatening attitude of the victim, assuming that to be true, does not constitute unlawful aggression. Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. Examples are the pointing of a gun or the brandishing of a knife or other deadly weapon.
B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed:
Whether the means employed is reasonable or not, will depend upon the kind of weapon of the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances as well as those of the person attacked and the time and place of the attack. Although a knife is more dangerous than a club, its use is reasonable if there is no other available means of defense at the disposal of the accused.
C. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself:
“Sufficient” means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its commission. Imputing to a person the utterance of vulgar language is sufficient provocation. This element refers to the person defending himself and is essentially inseparable and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.
However, the people who suppose to help and protect us is the one that's in danger us to certain perspective of which many people today suffered should you wait until we become a VICTIM.
SIGN THE PETITION NOW, help fight INJUSTICE....
You can further help this campaign by sponsoring it
The People's Justice against Crime petition to we will send the signatures to Congress, senate, and to the office of the President was written by Filipino Peoples Jury and is in the category Civil Rights at GoPetition.